Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel: The Covenant of Works according to William Strong

By Thomas Parr

William Strong (ca. 1611–1654) was an influential leader at the Westminster Assembly and was greatly admired by his contemporaries. However, in modern time, even those most indebted to the Westminster tradition are unfamiliar with this stalwart of the seventeenth century.

In this book, Thomas Parr opens by introducing us to the significance of the life and ministry of Strong and then launches into a survey and summary of Strong’s teaching on the covenant of works. Along the way, this book shows that the condemnation from a covenant of works serves as a dark backdrop to display the glory of the covenant of grace.

Table of Contents:
Prologue: The Life of William Strong
1. The Curse of the First Covenant, Death
2. People in Adam Prefer the First Covenant
3. Sin Is Irritated by the Law
4. The Law’s Rigor and Coercion
5. All Those in Christ Are Transferred from the First Covenant
6. Transference by Union with Christ
7. The Law as a Covenant Abolished to All in Christ
8. To All in Christ, the First Covenant Serves the Second
Conclusion: Experimental Covenant Theology Bibliography

• Language: English
• Publisher: Reformation Heritage Books
• Release date: May 29, 2020
• ISBN: 9781601787729

Book preview

BACKDROP

for a

GLORIOUS GOSPEL

The Covenant of Works according to William Strong

Thomas Parr

Reformation Heritage Books

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel

© 2020 by Thomas Parr

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Direct your requests to the publisher at the following addresses:

Reformation Heritage Books

2965 Leonard St. NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49525

616-977-0889

[e-mail]

www.heritagebooks.org

Printed in the United States of America

20 21 22 23 24 25/10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Parr, Thomas, author.

Title: Backdrop for a glorious gospel : the covenant of works according to William Strong / Thomas Parr.

Description: Grand Rapids, Michigan : Reformation Heritage Books, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020005125 (print) | LCCN 2020005126 (ebook) | ISBN 9781601787712 (paperback) | ISBN 9781601787729 (epub)

Subjects: LCSH: Strong, William, -1654. | Puritans—England—Biography. | Covenant theology.

Classification: LCC BX9339.S87 P37 2020 (print) | LCC BX9339.S87 (ebook) | DDC 230/.42—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020005125

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020005126

For additional Reformed literature, request a free book list from Reformation Heritage Books at the above regular or email address.

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Prologue: The Life of William Strong

1. The Curse of the First Covenant, Death

2. People in Adam Prefer the First Covenant

3. Sin Is Irritated by the Law

4. The Law’s Rigor and Coercion

5. All Those in Christ Are Transferred from the First Covenant

6. Transference by Union with Christ

7. The Law as a Covenant Abolished to All in Christ

8. To All in Christ, the First Covenant Serves the Second

Conclusion: Experimental Covenant Theology

Bibliography

Index of Persons

Subject and Scripture Index

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for all those who were instrumental in the writing of this book in one way or another. Long ago Dr. Mark Minnick first taught me to value and love careful exegesis, and he was the first to introduce me to the Puritans. Dr. Bryan Smith honed my thinking through countless theological conversations. Dr. David Murray first asked me to articulate my thinking on the Mosaic covenant. Pastor Malcolm Watts inspired in me a love for covenant theology and an interest in William Strong. Dr. Chad Van Dixhoorn first encouraged me to write on this topic. Dr. Stephen Myers read the book twice and gave excellent feedback. Dr. Joel Beeke encouraged me with sheer enthusiasm for the project. My wife, Naomi, by far the most encouraging mere human I have ever known, puts up with me and keeps on loving me. I have been truly blessed by the Lord.

Introduction

In 1654 the Presbyterian minister Obadiah Sedgwick preached at William Strong’s funeral. In his sermon Sedgwick made the following remarks about the man who was a fellow member of the Westminster Assembly and whom he knew and respected: Only this I will say of him; That one so plain in heart, so deep in judgment, so painful in studies, so frequent and powerful and exact in preaching, so laborious with and useful to his congregation, so able to convince the gainsayer, so zealous in contending for the truths of Christ, so fit for all ministerial services…of his time, I have not known the like.1

Deep, powerful, exact, laborious, incomparable—other contemporaries of Strong refer to him in similar laudatory terms. For example, Theophilus Gale (1628–1678) said, He was…a Miracle of Grace for deep insight into the more profound Mysteries of the Gospel: He had a Spirit capacious and prompt, sublime and penetrant, profound and clear; a singular Sagacity to pry into the difficult Texts of Scripture, and incomparable Dexterity to discover the Secrets of corrupt Nature, a Divine Sapience to explicate the Mysteries of Grace.2

Perhaps people of that era were accustomed to referring to their dead contemporaries in hagiographic terms, but it is remarkable that so many speak of Strong in near superlatives. Henry Wilkinson (1610–1675), another assemblyman, also spoke highly of Strong: He made preaching his work, he was so much taken up in his work, that to my knowledge he was often in watching a great part of the night, besides his pains in his daily studies…. He came to be of very great note, and cried up beyond his Brethren, by reason whereof, had not God given him much grace he might have been puffed up.3

If the above quotations reveal anything (and there is no reason to discount them), they reveal that William Strong was a powerful preacher, a committed scholar, and a profound thinker. A perusal of his works reveals that he delved deeply into whatever subject of study that lay before him.4 Most of the Puritans were reflective and meticulous, but Strong seems to have had these qualities in spades. He concentrated much of his attention on covenant theology and was considered a chief authority on the subject, as Gale explained: He was…familiarly acquainted with the deepest points in Theology…. As he transcended the most of this Age in the Explication of Evangelical Verities, so in his Intelligence and Explication of the two Covenants he seems much to excel himself; this being the great study of his life.5

Despite these high praises, recent treatments of Strong’s theology are scarce, just like treatments of his life, and most who cite him do not comprehensively evaluate his work.6 His thoughts on covenant theology remain mostly neglected, and this is a pity since he was considered one of the important Puritan thinkers on the subject. It is high time to recover and examine his contribution to covenant theology—A Discourse of the Two Covenants.

Questions and Purpose

Modern students of theology will have certain interests and questions: How did Strong teach covenant theology? What did he think about the covenants of works and of grace? How did he view the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace? Which ideas did he think were most important and thus spend most of his time on? Proportionately, where did his interests lie? How do his covenantal views compare to his contemporaries’ views? What was distinctive about Strong’s covenant theology?7 These are the questions that will guide this study.

Rather than attempt to enlist Strong to champion a certain viewpoint, this study discovers what Strong said about covenants in the proportions he himself laid out and compares his views with those of other Puritans.

Challenges and Methods

William Strong’s magnum opus, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, has been largely neglected for centuries, and it does not take the reader long to discover why this is the case. In penetrating Strong’s tome,8 a reader will immediately notice two things: it is profound yet extremely difficult to read. The book is filled with insights on the covenants, but these are locked up in 447 roughly octavo-sized pages, each of which is a dense wall of small print filled with organizational blunders and typographical errors.

This difficult presentation no doubt has contributed to the book’s state of neglect. The tome’s profundity, extreme difficulty, and state of neglect demand a particular approach; therefore, this book examines Strong’s covenant theology in three special ways.

First, Strong’s ideas are meticulously re-presented in context. His profundity demands an approach that carefully follows his sequence of thought and copiously cites his words. Strong is by nature a theological explorer. He plumbs the depths of ideas. He is a theological spelunker, and in his tome he very carefully explores and maps out every cave, side chamber, and vein. Thomas Carlyle defined genius as an infinite capacity for taking pains. It was said of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones that he thinks a thing through to its bottom.9 These sentiments accurately describe Strong in a Discourse of the Two Covenants. He displays immense patience in thinking things through. No matter how involved the discussion becomes, he is meticulous and unhurried.10 He is the antithesis of the person that Thomas Watson warned against: Some have light, feathery spirits; they run over the most weighty truths in haste.11 Henry Wilkinson said of Strong, There is an excellent vein in his sermons; the farther you search, the richer treasure you are like to find.12

Because this is how Strong wrote his tome, this book carefully traces his unfolding argument and liberally cites his words. To do anything else would ensure that his ideas would be minimized or cherry-picked. Instead they will be conveyed in context and in the proportions he himself laid out. At points Strong’s argument has been traced very closely indeed, each step forward being noted. Where Strong’s reasoning is not as tight, and where the needs of the pulpit required extensive application or topical expansion, the book summarizes paragraphs in a sentence or two, or whole pages in a paragraph. In this way the book does not overemphasize details, miss the main ideas, or oversimplify things. The goal is to present Strong’s covenant theology in the proportions he himself laid out; attention was given to how Strong taught covenant theology as well as to what he taught. Thus, this book’s themes, emphases, and progression of thought are Strong’s own.

Second, the book offers a fresh outline of Strong’s tome, which can be seen throughout in the headings and subheadings; these are not found in Strong’s tome but represent in many cases a complete reanalysis of it. Undoubtedly the vast majority of those reading A Discourse of the Two Covenants will find that the poor outlining and presentation make it difficult to follow Strong’s flow of thought. The reader encounters pages of dense exposition peppered with numbers representing multiple levels of subordination. If the problem were only density and levels of subordination, it would not be so difficult. Unfortunately, there are many places where the outlining fails, sometimes critically. Other places have pagination problems introduced by missing page numbers (not missing pages, thankfully!). The outlining problems are far worse than the pagination problems, however, because they confuse any reader who tries to follow the train of thought, which is an absolute must in reading Strong’s tome.13 This book offers a fresh analysis and outline so that Strong’s train of thought is easier to follow.

Third, because Strong’s theology has been neglected for hundreds of years, his ideas are compared to other, more well-known Puritan covenant theologians. This book compares Strong to John Ball, Francis Roberts, and Ezekiel Hopkins as well as other seventeenth-century sources, such as the Westminster Standards, and Puritans, such as Samuel Bolton and John Flavel.14 Comparing Strong to other respected and well-known thinkers allows his theology to be evaluated in the context of his era. Ball wrote earlier than Strong, Roberts was roughly a contemporary of Strong, and Hopkins wrote later. The reader should give special attention to the footnotes, where passages from the writings of other Puritans (as well as several important modern studies15) will be found. A section called Notable Themes at the end of each chapter will highlight important ideas from Strong.

Given the massive size and complexity of Strong’s tome, this book is limited to examining Of the Covenant of Works, which is the first book out of three in it. The eight chapters of this book correspond to Strong’s eight chapters. The conclusion does not correspond to any chapter in Strong’s work but instead collects his main themes and offers them as a help to Christians, theologians, and ministers today.

Overview of Strong on the Covenant of Works

In sum, Strong’s handling of the covenant of works shows the terrifying reality of that broken covenant and exposes the power that fallen nature has over those under the covenant’s condemnation. Strong seeks to use this grim situation as a dark backdrop that sets off God’s gracious covenant to advantage; he desires to allure unbelievers to Christ and to edify believers in Christ so that God is praised for His glorious grace. This is the purpose that Strong fulfills throughout his book; it is therefore what will occur in the heart and mind of the Spirit-filled and motivated reader.

In chapter 1, Strong teaches that the covenant of works is quite real and not at all a theological fabrication. He explains its basics, provides various proofs of its reality, and dwells on its continued ramifications now that it is broken—its metes out death to all men. In chapters 2–4, Strong discusses various experiential ramifications of being in the covenant of works. These chapters linger on how the fall affects how unbelieving people think and feel and act. Chapter 2 shows that people in the covenant of works actually prefer it to grace in Christ. They desire to establish their own righteousness. Chapter 3 shows that people in the covenant of works are profoundly irritated by law, and thus fallen people’s relationship to law only aggravates and worsens sin in their lives. Chapter 4 explains that people in the covenant of works are in a relationship to law that is one of rigor; they must obey perfectly or be cursed forever. This chapter also explains that people in the covenant of works do not have a heart that is conformable to the law. Therefore, any obedience they offer is forced and is the result of coercion.

The rest of Strong’s first book concentrates on the reality and importance of being transferred out of the covenant of works into that of grace in Christ; it explains how such a transference occurs and dwells on its profound ramifications. Chapter 5 discusses the reality of covenantal transference and why it is utterly crucial to undergo it experientially. It is crucial to undergo it because the covenants are mutually exclusive, and the first covenant is broken but ever afoot, enforcing death as the penalty for sin. Chapter 6 explains that transference takes place by being united to Jesus Christ by the Spirit and by faith. Chapter 7 discusses how the law is abolished as a covenant to everyone who is united to Christ. Jesus fully satisfied the law for believers, and everyone united to Him is free from the law’s rigor and condemnation. Chapter 8 goes into great detail about how God has made the matter and the form of the first covenant to serve the gracious covenant. This last chapter has much to say on matters such as the Mosaic covenant’s relationship to the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; it is a theological odyssey, and its depth and detail must be experienced to be believed.

It is quite easy to presume that a treatment of the condemning covenant of works must be very grim reading. But Strong ensured that it would not be so. All along the way, he provides evangelistic contrasts in which he uses the broken first covenant as a dark backdrop to set off God’s grace to advantage. Though he is discussing the covenant of works, Strong desires to show his reader the glory of the covenant of grace and thus wants to attract his reader to Christ. Therefore, in Strong’s hands the subject of the covenant of works becomes, by way of skillful contrasts, a feast of edifying gospel.

---

1. Obadiah Sedgwick, Elisha, His Lamentation, upon the Sudden Translation of Elijah (London, 1654), 28.

2. William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants (1678; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), n.p. See Theophilus Gale’s unpaginated A Summary of the Two Covenants at the beginning of Strong’s book.

3. Ira Boseley, The Independent Church of Westminster Abbey (1650–1826) (London: The Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1907), 90.

4. The Careful perusal of Strong’s discourses on the two Covenants will satisfy the judicious reader that the author was one of the greatest divines of his age. This is a comment made by nineteenth-century editor John O. Choules in a later edition of Daniel Neal’s A History of the Puritans, vol. 2, ed. John O. Choules (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1844), 154.

5. Strong, Discourse of the Two Covenants, 1.

6. The following volumes show to what degree Strong’s theology has been studied in recent times. John Von Rohr quotes Strong’s Discourse of the Two Covenants seven times in his The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1986), 35, 37–38, 43, 45, 85, 104, 179. Brenton C. Ferry quotes Strong four times in his essay Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Reformed Taxonomy, in The Law Is Not of Faith, ed. Bryan Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2009), 357. Joel Beeke and Mark Jones quote Strong four times in A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 1050. Ernest F. Kevan cites Strong’s Discourse more than two dozen times in The Grace of Law (1964; repr., Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria, 2015), 292. Kevan quotes many other Puritans more often than he quotes Strong, and even his comparatively fuller treatment is far from a comprehensive evaluation of Strong’s work.

7. Most of these questions were taken from a phone conversation in 2016 with Chad Van Dixhoorn when he was asked if you were to read a book on William Strong’s covenant theology, what would you want to find in it? Most of the questions listed here came from his reply. Some others were brought up in a subsequent phone call with Joel Beeke.

8. Chad Van Dixhoorn, introduction to Strong, Discourse of the Two Covenants, n.p.

9. Iain Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 55, 77.

10. At one point in his discussion of the covenant of works, he shows that he is aware of how his approach might provoke impatience; he humorously tells his hearers that they will be blessed by a certain teaching if ever we come to handle this property of the covenant of grace. See Strong, Discourse of the Two Covenants, 77.

11. Thomas Watson, Heaven Taken by Storm (1810; repr., Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), 118.

12. Daniel Neal, A History of the Puritans, vol. 2, ed. John O. Choules (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1844), 2:154.

13. Theophilus Gale took the stack of sermons that constituted Strong’s series on the covenants and adapted them into the tome we have today. Gale gave himself the liberty of casting it into this method of Books, Chapters, Sections and half-sections. See the final paragraph of Gale’s unpaginated A Summary at the beginning of A Discourse of the Two Covenants. Gale’s comment is at least a partial explanation for why the tome is so poorly organized. In the same paragraph Gale admitted there were many imperfections in the manuscript but defended himself by saying that he had denied himself many hours from his natural refreshments to organize it.

14. The Puritan works referenced most often throughout the thesis are John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London, 1645); Francis Roberts, Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum: The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible, viz God’s Covenants with Man (London, 1657); Ezekiel Hopkins, The Two Covenants, in The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins, vol. 2. (1874; repr., Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997); John Flavel, The Method of Grace (repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977); and Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (1645; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2010).

15. The modern works that have proved most helpful are von Rohr, Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought; Beeke and Jones, Puritan Theology; and Kevan, Grace of Law. Two others that were also quite helpful at certain points are Carl W. Bogue, Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2008); and Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).

Prologue:

The Life of William Strong

Not much is known about William Strong except what can be gathered from old, obscure books. His industrious life in the era of Oliver Cromwell is buried in obscurity, just like his body, which was exhumed from Westminster Abbey and cast into a mass grave in 1661. Details about his life can indeed be found, but only a few sources compile them into an extended account, and only one source has done so in the last hundred years.1 It is intriguing that one must hunt for and gather an array of sources in order to learn about a man who was buried in no less a place than the abbey and whose disinterment was an act of revenge by an English king.

Whether one discovers a single clue in a modern volume or digs up some ancient tome from the Puritan era, the investigator often finds tantalizing glimpses about the man’s greatness. Strong achieved renown as a minister—Thomas Manton called him a burning and shining light.2 Restorationists considered him a leading figure among the leaders of the Interregnum—his body was, after all, exhumed in the same purge that carried out Cromwell’s body. A nineteenth-century editor of Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans extolled Strong’s status as a theologian, claiming that a careful perusal of Strong’s discourses on the two Covenants will satisfy the judicious reader that the author was one of the greatest divines of his age.3 Whether one looks at Strong’s friends or enemies, ancient or modern, he was notable.

Why, then, do so few people today know about William Strong, even those who are familiar with many of the other Puritans? As Boseley put it, Why has the memory of this devoted minister, so courageously consecrated to his work, been allowed to shade off into obscurity, and almost toward oblivion?4 Perhaps the demise of the Puritan movement in general brought the curtain down on him, although others such as Baxter and Owen have avoided oblivion. Did his early death cause him to be forgotten? No, Thomas Manton and John Rowe saw to it that many of Strong’s unpublished works were issued after his death,5 and therefore many people were reading Strong into the 1680s. Ira Boseley’s view may have the most to commend it—Restoration England deliberately defaced the memory of leaders in the Interregnum, and therefore it was Strong’s association with the Protectorate that led to his marginalization: The career of Charles II and the corruptions of his court came between the commonwealth and the country. In consequence, such preachers as Mr. Strong had discredit cast upon them. The nation’s attention was diverted from the characters of its noblest sons, and the people’s views of their aims were distorted. A corrupt press, which was at the service of the King and his associates, also misrepresented them, and sought to efface the remembrance of the reforms they had wrought for their country’s welfare.6

But Strong’s prominent position in the Interregnum cannot be the complete explanation for his later obscurity, for, again, Owen also had a premier position due to the ascendancy of the Independents, and Owen is well known today. One might surmise that the subjects of study that consumed Strong’s energies made him uninteresting to later people—many who lived afterward thought that the era of the Puritans was fraught with an old mystical divinity…distracted…with pious conundrums.7

Ultimately, it is difficult to know why Strong is still buried in obscurity, especially now that interest in the Puritans has revived since the days of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Even during this revival of interest, when so many other artifacts have been dug up and brought out into the light, Strong remains buried, at least until now.

Birth, Education, and First Pastorate

There are no records about Strong’s parents, although one Timothy Strong is a possible candidate for his father.8 No one knows the year of William’s birth, but it was probably around 1611.9 There is next to nothing extant about William’s childhood, though the most recent theory says he was born in Dorset.10 Strong’s parents were probably people of at least moderate means, for he was educated at St. Catharine’s College, Cambridge (when it was still called Katharine Hall).11 The celebrated Richard Sibbes was the college’s headmaster at the time.12 Strong was an excellent student; he graduated in 1631 with a BA and was elected a fellow of St. Catharine’s. In 1634 he graduated with an MA from the same institution.13

Although he had the promise of a great career ahead of him, Strong was a man of convictions who was willing to suffer for them, if need be. In July of 1634 he spoke out quite boldly against Archbishop Laud and against prelacy: He was alleged to have said that Archbishop William Laud had sinned against the Holy Ghost, and perhaps more subversively, that there would soon be no bishops in England.14 Due to these puritanical statements, Strong was stripped of his position at St. Catharine’s and of his academic degrees in 1634.15 It is not known what Strong did for the next few years, but in 1640 he became the rector of a small parish in Dorset called Moor Crichel.16 He ministered there for three years.

Flight to London and Early Preaching Ministry at the Abbey

In 1643, Strong fled Royalist forces, which were active in Dorset, and went to London.17 Strong may have traveled from Moor Crichel to London in winter—a distance of around one hundred miles.18 London was firmly in the hands of the Puritan sympathizers who made up Parliament at the time.19 When Strong arrived, the Westminster Assembly had recently met for the first time on July 1, 1643. He must have had friends in London who respected his abilities as a preacher and a theologian. Although he had not been in an academic post since 1634, and had spent the previous three years pastoring a very obscure parish, he quickly became well known once he arrived.

London had recently undergone dramatic changes. After many years of struggle under Charles I (and under his archbishop William Laud), the Puritans in Parliament had successfully challenged the authority of the King, who had fled London out of fear for his safety in early 1642.20 The English Civil War was under way, and there would be no king in London until 1660. The Puritans had finally gained the ascendancy, and the time was right for them to have substantial influence.

Puritan influence deeply affected religious life. Since 1642, the character of ministry in Westminster Abbey (and elsewhere) began to transform. Charles I and William Laud had promoted a high church, ceremonial religion, and when the Puritans drove Charles out of London, they ousted the Laudians and their penchant for ceremonies along with him. J. F. Merritt notes that Puritan values were writ large in the religious life of the nation.21 As early as 1641 Parliament began ordering the removal of monuments of idolatry and the leveling of chancels.22

Merritt describes the transformation as both practical and theological: The transition…was clearly a matter of adjusted priorities.23 Horton Davies points out that the differences between Laudianism and Puritanism were not only practical, such as how to do church, but also doctrinal. This observation counters the claim that the two parties agreed on doctrine but not on practice: From Calvin the Puritans inherited two important tenets: the all-sufficiency of Scripture and a thorough-going restatement of the doctrine of original sin. And it was precisely on these grounds that the Puritans differed from the Anglicans…. Thus the Anglican’s claim to institute ceremonies and customs that were not contradicted by Scripture, was an affront to the Divine Majesty in the Puritan’s eyes. It was, moreover, a denial of the doctrine of original sin.24

The regulative principle as held by Calvin and the Puritans made an absolute claim: only that which is commanded in God’s Word ought to be practiced in corporate worship. This exclusive approach contrasted with the position of the Lutherans and Laudians, who felt that they had freedom to include things of their own devising as long as those practices were not condemned by the Word.25

The Puritans not only got rid of icons and ceremonies but also added a robust preaching ministry. The churches were recommissioned as spaces for the preaching of God’s Word.26 John Vicars, an eyewitness of these changes at the abbey, adds further detail using quite colorful language:

Whereas there was wont to be heard, nothing almost but roaring boys and squeaking organ pipes, and the cathedral catches of Morley, and I know not what trash; now the popish altar is quite taken away, and bellowing organs are demolish, and pulled down, the treble, or rather trouble and base singers, chanters or inchanters driven out; instead thereof, there is now set up a most blessed orthodox preaching ministry, every morning throughout the weeke, and every weeke through the whole yeare a sermon is preached by most learned grave, and godly ministers, of purpose appointed thereunto, and for the gaudy, guilded crucifixes, and rotten rabble of dumb idols, popish saints and pictures, set up and placed, and painted thereabout, where that sinful singing was used: now a most sweet assembly, and thick throng of God’s pious people, and well-affected, living teachable saints there is constantly and most comfortably, every morning to be seen at the sermons.27

Instead of chanting and ceremonies, seven different Puritan divines preached sermons at the abbey every morning of the week, all year long. In 1645 William Strong was appointed one of those seven preachers.28 Strong, who had been so isolated in Moor Crichel, quickly became a central part of the religious transformation that occurred during this tumultuous age.

The daily sermons at the abbey were quite well attended—servants had to petition for room to hear the daily preaching.29 This high demand for preaching shows that the changes were not made only from the top down; it was a grassroots movement. Many people of the era were passionate about preaching, and in William Strong people found someone who was tailor-made for the times. In addition to his weekly ministry at the abbey, Strong also began giving lectures at St. Dunstan-in-the-West, Fleet Street, as early as June 1644.30 From the beginning of his time in London, Strong enjoyed a busy life where he had greater and greater opportunities to use his gifts.

Humble, Astute Preaching before Parliament

On December 31, 1645, Strong preached his first sermon to the House of Commons on a day they had established as a solemn fast. In this sermon, titled Ἡμέρα Ἀποκαλύψεως, The Day of Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God, Strong reminded the parliamentarians that at God’s judgment each person will be seen to be what manner of man he is.31 In the dedication to the sermon, Strong gave a rare biographical glimpse into his conception of himself. He confessed, When I first heard that I was designed unto this solemn service, I could not entertain the motion without fear and many misgiving thoughts, both of mine own unworthiness of so great an honor, and unfitness for so public a work, being both by parts and place, rather destined to privacy and obscurity.32 The years at Moor Crichel had apparently seasoned him for quiet, out-of-the-way duties. Nevertheless, he answered the call to minister, and it quickly became obvious that Strong had not used privacy and obscurity for self-indulgence. His powers, which had been recognized a decade earlier at St. Catharine’s, had not been dulled by neglect; Parliament thanked him for the great paines he took in the sermon.33

The insightful and convicting nature of Strong’s preaching can be discerned nearly anywhere one looks among his sermons. Consider the following excerpt from his first sermon preached to Parliament in 1645, in which Strong warns against wrong motives. One can hardly imagine a better caveat to leaders of any sort:

A man may by his end destroy that which he doth by his action most pretend to build, and by his end he may establish that which by his act he seems to endeavor to destroy: Jehu in his act seemed a great reformer, but though he proved Ahab’s executioner, yet by reason of his corrupt end, in his idolatry he proved his successor. A man may love the tyranny when he hates the tyrant: oppose the oppressor and yet love the oppression: A man may endeavor to cast out Episcopacy, root and branch, and yet love preeminence, desire priority, and effect to be called Rabbi.34

This is insightful thinking, and it points out how inaccurate many descriptions of Puritan preaching can be. The book House of Kings, published by Anglicans in the twentieth century, speaks of the Interregnum preaching ministry at the abbey as follows: So, as the preachers raved and ranted, and one after another the leaders of the Commonwealth and Protectorate passed to their temporary resting place within her walls, St Peter-in-Westminster watched and waited for better days.35

After reading Strong, one realizes that ranting and raving is (at the least) a misleading way to describe his sermons. Boseley is more accurate when he states, Such heroic patriots [the men of the parliamentary cause] became intolerant of priests and ceremonies. They demanded that only preachers with robust intellects, transparent characters and unfaltering courage, should become occupants of pulpits,36 and also Marsden, referring to ‘the pulpits of the metropolis,’ declared that they ‘displayed a galaxy of light and genius such as it had never before, and perhaps has never since, exhibited.’37 By 1646, Strong was well on his way to becoming one of the brightest lights in that galaxy.

Loyalty to Parliament and Growing Criticism of It

It was not long before Strong was preaching to Parliament again; he not only displayed great ability in the pulpit but also made it clear that he was quite committed to the parliamentary cause against the Royalists. In his first sermon to the Commons, Strong affirmed, I have been from the beginning devoted in this great cause of God and his church.38 On the last page of the epistle dedicatory, he referred to Parliament’s recent acts as all the service you do towards this shattered kingdom.39 On the final page of the sermon proper, Strong notes that many people imputed false motives to Parliament, such as hungering for power, but in that day God will clear you from all these, then shall every man…have praise of God: And then, he who will wipe away all tears from your eyes will also wipe off all blots from your names.40 At least at the end of 1645, Strong was convinced that Parliament was committed to a righteous course.

Nevertheless, Strong reserved the right to criticize Parliament if he, as a church minister, felt that it was going astray. Strong became more and more critical of Parliament as the years went by, and a careful reader of his sermons to Parliament can trace these changes in attitudes, which seem to reflect others’ sentiments as well—Cromwell famously turned out the Rump Parliament on April 21, 1653, claiming, You are no parliament; I will put an end to your sitting!41 This is a remarkable change since Parliament was the moving force of the land only a few years before and had even brought about the execution of Charles I in 1649. Although it is conceivable that Cromwell’s position toward